There is an elderly widow of my acquaintance who is quite well off — she owns three houses (plus a vacant waterfront lot in one of the richest neighborhood of her Tidewater city), has a guaranteed-for-life pension courtesy of the US taxpayers, Social Security on top of that, Medicare and TriCare, and over the last two years has inherited several hundred thousand dollars. This woman believes that it is “immoral” that we do not have universal, single-payer health coverage a la Canada. When asked whether the government should legislate morality, she hesitated (sensing the trap but seeing no way out) and said, “No, but we should be moral. We should take care of our own.” (Of course, she does not attend church.)

Now, there is a poor, uninsured, middle-aged friend of hers who needs a heart valve operation. She, of course, is not willing to pay for it.

This is the “morality” of the left — generosity with everyone else’s money, but not willing to help her own friends in need.

Neither Jacob nor I have ever said the government should legislate morality. Perhaps it is YOU, Special Ed, evolving into a being with the capacity to read and comprehend what you read.

Written by Ed Myers about 3 years ago.

“No” expressed as disagreement with a rhetorical question can be different from “No” as the answer when responding to a simple question. I see you didn’t get it either. Tough crowd tonight.

Written by Ed Myers about 3 years ago.

Legislative law derived from natural law is based on morality. For example objection to same sex marriage is morally based. It isn’t based on rights. Amnesty for illegal immigrants is morally based rather than based on rights. Therefore both sides do it. And both sides often try to invent rights to make their point. They want the “right” to be free from living next to someone who is morally repugnant to them and that requires a law banning the repugnant behavior.

No. It is based on preserving the religious freedom of those who think it is immoral. What you want is to force religious people to provide support for so-called “marriages” which are immoral. What I want is for the government to be completely agnostic toward marriage — having no say in who can marry, providing no different treatment for those who do or for those who do not, and not forcing anyone to accept any marriage of which their moral code disapproves.

If a man wants to marry another man, fine. Just don’t demand that I treat them as married, either in my personal dealings with them or in my professional dealings with them.

Written by Lovisa about 3 years ago.

Hey, you guys!
What happened to the poor uninsured middle-aged friend? Did she get her valve?
This reader wants to know>

Written by Jack about 3 years ago.

Nope. Still living with a bum ticker.

Written by edmundburkenator about 3 years ago.

Jack-in-the-box, the “no” wasn’t the problem, it was the level of government dodge. You added U.S. Government to the discussion. I asked about small g government.

So, your imprecise language would have made it more clear.

Let me ask you then, since you “clarified” your answer by including all levels of government, if you had a restaurant, do you feel like you should be compelled to serve Hispanics, if you don’t wish to do so, by government?

Written by edmundburkenator about 3 years ago.

“So, your imprecise language would have made it more clear.”

Dear Special Baby Jesus, I meant: your imprecise language made it less clear.

Let me just say: I know what your answer will be already to the question. So let’s just skip to morality and free markets. Do you feel morality plays a role in free markets jack-in-the-box?

Written by Jack about 3 years ago.

> [If] you had a restaurant, do you feel like you should be compelled
> to serve Hispanics, if you don’t wish to do so, by government?

No, that is legislating morality.

Do YOU not also oppose the legislating of morality?

> Do you feel morality plays a role in free markets jack-in-the-box?

Yes, because people choose which businesses to patronize, and often those decisions have a moral component. That is what boycotts are all about. Even without organized boycotts, people individually decide that some companies (or owners) support causes they think are immoral, and so they choose not to patronize those businesses.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

“No. It is based on preserving the religious freedom of those who think it is immoral. What you want is to force religious people to provide support for so-called “marriages” which are immoral.”

How, Jack, does treating a same sex marriage equally with two sex marriage in the LAW infringe on ANYONE’s religious freedom?

I agree with you that no RELIGION should be forced to perform same sex marriages if they do not wish to. But the fight to legalize same sex marriage is a CIVIL fight NOT a religious one.

Written by Ed Myers about 3 years ago.

I understand the elderly widows concern. If collectively we are not willing to help extend the lifespan of a productive member of society (thereby insuring a steady stream of tax receipts) why would society want to help her out in her old age when her productivity is gone. In her situation she calculates she needs to be less generous until death to cover health contingencies and then if she is lucky she can be generous to others in her will.

This is the hoarding nature in action when there is insecurity. We saw hoarding in action in gas lines in NJ. Hoarding is inefficient and that is why we are wealthier when we have a safety net.

Written by Barbara Munsey about 3 years ago.

Eric, it is currently a civil fight. If it stays that way then you’re correct.

Oh those unintended consequences, once the civil war is won (on any issue).

Words having living meaning and all, in the fight to control the lexicon.

Progressives never actually bring anything to the table but feelings and noise, consequently, when others take them at face value and “dialogue”, whatever is taken away from the table in subsequent negotiation is a net win for the progs, since they contributed nothing whatsoever but demands.

You can see the result of the death by a thousand cuts in the ballooning fed machine.

But I’m sure if we just pass enough laws on top of laws, eventually everything will be fixerd.

And if it isn’t, then we’ll just pass some more laws!

And hire people to police the results, which CREATES JOBS

and so on.

Not commenting on the rightness or wrongness of any “moral” based fight, in this our living language and fluid culture.

Just on methods, and “dialogue”.

Written by Jack about 3 years ago.

“How, Jack, does treating a same sex marriage equally with two sex marriage in the LAW infringe on ANYONE’s religious freedom?”

Excellent question. A business owner forced by law to provide benefits for an employee’s “spouse.” Private adoption agencies forced by law to consider same-sex couples as equally appropriate parents for their charges. Taxpayers forced by law to subsidize, through our tax and welfare systems, a sinful lifestyle. A landlord forced by law to have tenants who flout their immoral lifestyle.

Is that enough for you, or do you need more?

Written by Jack about 3 years ago.

You still need to work on that reading comprehension, Special Ed. She has BOTH a government pension AND Social Security. She will not run out of money until the government does.

Written by Jack about 3 years ago.

“We saw hoarding in action in gas lines in NJ. Hoarding is inefficient and that is why we are wealthier when we have a safety net.”

If folks were allow to sell a market prices, there would be no hoarding. Gas stations would have incentive to keep backup generators, people outside the affected area would have an incentive to bring on new supply, and people would be less inclined to “just top off,” leaving more for those who need it.

Written by Nova Mom about 3 years ago.

It comes down to this…how to convince people that personal responsibility and hard work is a better path than waiting around for the big government Santa to hand out ‘freebees’…… it’s hard to compete with Santa.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

“Is that enough for you, or do you need more?”

None of those examples in any way infringe on a person practicing his/her own religion. Having to treat ALL your employees equally does NOT stop a person from praying in his church. Equal treatment under the law is NOT applied narrowly, while religious exemptions are. In America you do NOT have an exemption from following laws simply because you claim it is counter to your religion. You only have an exemption from law if that law restricts your ability to worship (example – the Catholic Church can legally discriminate against women ONLY where that discrimination is central to the actual PRACTICE of that religion – not in general hiring practices).

Sorry, Jack, but once again, your viewpoint of what you think our “rights” are comes out of some strange world of your own making.

Written by ACTivist about 3 years ago.

NovaMom, that IS the magical question–how to convince someone. This should be naturally going on in both schools and home but you can see by comments here that it has not been for quite some time.

Written by Nova Mom about 3 years ago.

You are correct ACT – and that disturbs me greatly for the future of my kids. I just didn’t think I would have to witness the end of my country – but I will stay strong and fight to raise 2 hard working conservative kids in this sea of progressivism….

Written by Wolverine about 3 years ago.

“In America you do NOT have an exemption from following laws simply because you claim it is counter to your religion.”

Mennonites and similar faiths exempted from military combat conscription because war is counter to their religion?

Amish not required to pay Social Security for their Amish employees because they consider it is insurance and insurance is counter to their religion?

“Having to treat ALL your employees equally does NOT stop a person from praying in his church. Equal treatment under the law is NOT applied narrowly, while religious exemptions are.”

So one is NOT free to exercise one’s religion in Troll’s America. You can pray all you want, but only in church — don’t try to actually live as God says you should.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

“You can pray all you want, but only in church — don’t try to actually live as God says you should.”

Jack, the religious exclusion from law does NOT apply to your “values”. It only applies where the law specifically prohibits you from PRACTICING your religion.

If I claimed that it was against my religion to hire a person from a mixed race couple, I would not be exempt from fair hiring regulations. Sorry it simply does not work that way – and it shouldn’t.

Nothing in the cases you cited infringe on your ability to PRACTICE your religion. You do NOT, however, get to make up your own rules to apply to everybody else simply because you claim God told you to.

Another example, you could claim that it is against your religion to let non-Chrisitan live and all infidels must be slaughtered. Are you suggesting you should be exempt from any laws against murder? Only in Jackland…

“[You] could claim that it is against your religion to let non-Chrisitan live and all infidels must be slaughtered. Are you suggesting you should be exempt from any laws against murder?”

No, because that would violate someone else’s rights. NOT hiring someone, for whatever reason, does not violate his rights. Not providing someone’s “spouse” benefits does not violate his rights, either. Not allowing two gay men to adopt a little boy does not violate their rights.

Written by edmundburkenator about 3 years ago.

Well, we have an intractable disagreement brewing as to what constitutes a “right” it seems.

Jack-in-the-box, I understand your position on the not serving Hispanics. I do. I also agree that morality is at work in the marketplace. The retail, wholesale marketplace, and the marketplace of ideas.

The market is speaking to you.

Your candidate and party (at least the one you prefer, I imagine you wrote in libertarian or Santorum), the party that does not cater to Hispanics (or a range of other potential customers) just took a hit in the election. It also appears it is losing the strategic, long-term problem of relevance (one that libertarians know all too well).

So, I think things are working — in the big picture — just as you would like.

The problem is, your restaurant is going out of business.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

Why not, Jack? Because it is illegal. There is nothing in this law that infringes on your ability to practice your religion so you are not exempt. That is America and I really don’t care if you like it or not. You do not get to make up rules just for you. Of course, you do not believe in the American system.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

Not hiring someone in violation of federal or state law does not violate constitutional right but discrimination in enforcement of those laws DOES.

> Not hiring someone in violation of federal or state law does not violate constitutional right…

Thank you for admitting that, Troll.

So, the law says that I cannot do what I want with my money, I cannot hire or not hire whomever I want…. WHY?

This gets us to the question, “What is the purpose of the U.S. government?” The U.S. government is unique, in that it only has powers given to it by the States. So let us step back and ask, “What is the purpose of government?”

Would you not agree that the purpose of government is to protect people’s rights?

Yet you agree that NOT hiring someone because of his race or sexual orientation does NOT violate his rights. So what call is there for the government to violate the business owner’s property rights?

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

The role of the Legislature is to govern us. To establish a set of rules we ALL must live by to have a fair and just society. While those laws can not violate our Rights not every law must be there to protect a specific Right.

These laws do not violate anyone’s Rights. As I said, any business owner is free to exercise their religion at any time they wish. What they CAN’T do is make up their own rules based on that religion. Actually doing so would violate my right to equal representation because that person would in fact have established his own government. Luckily, our system does not allow this.

Actually, Troll, they violate those people’s property rights. If you are not allowed to do what you want with your money, your property rights are being violated.

So to achieve what you consider “fair,” you are willing to violate the rights of those with whom you disagree. Businesses create their own rules all the time. If you are not an owner of the business, why should you have any say in those rules, so long as they do not harm you?

If you do not like the rules, go set up or buy a company and make up your own rules. Or go work for a company whose rules you like. You say that a businessman cannot set up the rules for his company based on religion. Therefore you are violating his right to exercise his religion.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

“Actually, Troll, they violate those people’s property rights. If you are not allowed to do what you want with your money, your property rights are being violated.”

You have a right to OWN property NOT do anything you WANT with your property. Nice try but another miss. You can not, for instance, grow heroin poppies on your land in teh US simply because you wish to. Even the concept of growing pot for RELIGIOUS use has been found to be unallowable.

“So to achieve what you consider “fair,” you are willing to violate the rights of those with whom you disagree.”

No rights have been violated through fair hiring laws and the laws we are discussing so the question is moot. In the case where rights MIGHT be vilated by the law, we have a Justice system to balance the interests of the state against the rights of the citizen (see the religious use of pot for a good example).

“Businesses create their own rules all the time.”

Which they can do as long as those rules do not conflict with the rules enacted by the legislature.

“If you are not an owner of the business, why should you have any say in those rules, so long as they do not harm you?”

How do you know that they do not harm me? If I am passed over for promotion or compensation simply because of the color of my skin and no other reason while others are promoted or given additional compensation BECAUSE of their race, I have been harmed.

“You say that a businessman cannot set up the rules for his company based on religion.”

No, they can. For instance, Chick-fil-A has the right to not operate on Sunday based on the religious beliefs of its owners. But they can NOT set up their own rules that conflict with US or state (or even local) law. They can not, for instance, hire eight year old children to cook the food and pay them $1.00/hour in unsafe conditions because their religious beliefs support such business practices.

“If you do not like the rules, go set up or buy a company and make up your own rules.”

I like the rules and the system as is. It is logical, fair, and just. It is the same system that your grandparent operated under. I see no reason to change it because you wiish to enact your own vision of what America should be. Your vision for our country is too twisted, thanks very much, take it somewhere else. Apparently the majority of the electorate agrees with me, btw.

> You have a right to OWN property NOT do anything you WANT with your property.

Then one’s property rights are violated.

> You can not, for instance, grow heroin poppies on your land in teh US simply because
> you wish to. Even the concept of growing pot for RELIGIOUS use has been found to be
> unallowable.

And that violates the rights of the property owner.

Written by Eric the half a troll about 3 years ago.

“And that violates the rights of the property owner.”

No, it does not. You do NOT have a right to do anything you want with your property. Hell, you do not even have a right to OWN property.

Written by Jay Yoon about 3 years ago.

There is a huge pool of human capital that is not being utilized in our efforts to treat the sick. For example, there would be hundreds of retired heart surgeons who would in a heart beat, so to speak, offer to treat an uninsured person who needed heart surgery. Yet as the AMA presently mandates, retired physicians are not allowed to practice medicine, NOT EVEN IF IT IS DONE SO WITHOUT RENUMERATION. In other words, physicians who are retired are NOT ALLOWED TO HELP PEOPLE. The way the current system of medicine is structured actively suppresses the natural human instinct to give back and help others.

It’s really a cruel system. The AMA makes doctors greedy and it prevents them from doing their jobs to their fullest capacity. And like all less-than-noble institutions, it cloaks its malevolent and good-for-nothing actions under a veneer of nice sounding words and the typical boilerplate.

We should take a careful look at our institutions, and we will find that when there is a conflict of interest, and providers of goods and services are in a position to obtain some privilege by means of legislation, so they are in any way not required to continuously compete in the marketplace in order to maintain their means of making a living/earning money, that they will attempt to carve out a permanent position of rent-seeking that preys on the average and unsuspecting citizen. And the greater the position of prestige such an institution or profession is believed to have, the more corrupt, inefficient, and degraded the institution will become. And a sort of “false consciousness” will sink into the public mind, where the abuses of these institutions and professions are not seen for what they are because of our preconceived notions and socially constructed expectations; our tendency to see our social and political world from these colored glasses – our unquestioned biases, are the very element that is leading us astray and preventing us from seeing the true source of our problems.

In conclusion, the doctor-patient relationship as it is currently construed, is a relationship in which the patient has been deceived, exploited, and beaten over the head. The doctor-patient relationship is not the solution – it is the problem, and without the resolution of this problem, all the insurance reform will not resolve the fundamental problem.